Most people tend to think of Market Anarchy as being the Forces of the Market, driven by human desire and necessity, that drive the production and innovation that happens in the absence of rules, or the activities as such which subvert or are conducted contrary to the rules establshed to regulate the Market.
Of course this is what Market Anarchy is, and most would agree by empirical study of the effects of Market Anarchy (especially when contrasted to Market disrupting effects of Market control techniques, like through centralized decision making implemented by totalitarian state socialist countries such as Cuba and U.S.S.R.), that free Market Anarchy is in many ways, and maybe overall, beneficial to the growth and versatility of the existent Market.
One Force many overlook as being outside the domain of the Market, and somehow a different Force, is the free will of the people to limit certain aspects of the market through preventative, disruptive or destructive means, some which subvert established rules governing behavior of Market participants, rules that were established in an attempt to enforce what is thought of as safe or proper behavior in Market interactions.
Particularly, the will of the people to shut down Market entities, such as supply side entities, is thought of as being improper, and laws are established to discourage this behavior. For instance, if your protest activity or other activities cost a supplier a certain amount of money to sustain, then you and the participants in the destructive behavior will be breaking the law. An example of a real life organization that has been targeted for these types of activities is the Animal Liberation Front. This organization is labeled as a terrorist organization in the United States, so that now even associating with the organization will put you in danger of being penalized by authority. I personally know one of the members who has spent time in prison for activities such as shut downs, and sabotaging animal testing facilities to free animals.
We should look upon these types of activities as being legitimate however, maybe best if there is enough democratic support from other people, say a certain threshold of democratic support which can justify many means of Market Destruction such as industrial sabotage (in the case of freeing animals from a research facility, breaking down deforestation equipment, smashing big bank ATMs, etc), extremely disruptive protest activity, democratic shutdowns (like the Occupy Oakland port shutdown), theft, exposure of sensitive or proprietary information (probably best demonstrated by Wikileaks), free sharing and replication of information when it is cheap enough to do so (like in the case of Napster, Megaupload, bit-torrents, and other forms of information “pirating”), and spreading awareness through graffiti (which probably is best exemplified by graffiti placed in the physical locations where Market transactions, like a message about health issues, factory farming or deforestation on spray painted the wall of a McDonalds).
These types of activities actually serve to regulate the Market in a way that stimulates the development of the most useful products, and products that integrate the best with the available ecosystems and social landscapes. Without this type of regulation, other contextually inferior Forces, such as the value-profit Forces facilitated by the use of money, exert dominance within the operating Market Forces. This is a problem, because forces such as money have no environmental context, or at least such a small environmental context, that it causes Market decisions to be made that have no consideration of ecological issues. The same happens with social issues, money has very little social context and its dominance in the Market generates long term social issues. Both these environmental and social issues undermine the integrity of the Market and the products and relationships, and societal organization which it creates.
Maybe a good way to put the money example, particularly, is that:
Money is blind to society and the environment, as such its dominance in the Market is detrimental to both society and the environment, and as the Market itself operates within society and the available environment, and relies of the health of both, money’s dominance in the Market is detrimental to the Market itself.
And as such, we need to use Democratic Industrial Sabotage to regulate the Market and balance the detrimental effects of other Marker Forces.
The absence of such anarchic Forces paired with the presence of legal Forces in the favor of special interests could be part of the Market problem that caused the 2008 Financial Crisis, for instance, and is certainly the cause of widespread unsustainable ecological destruction, and societally disruptive distribution of wealth within industrialized nations and among nations they interact with.
In the same vein the absence of the Market Force of widespread and graphic coverage of the operations in the Irag and Afghanistan wars allows the Market transaction of war to the American people to complete. If the American people were to be stimulated by the graphic reality if what they are buying with their tax dollars, they may not wish to complete the transaction. Other forces are at play in the war scenario, that convolute any speculation about the possible definite outcomes of the Market Interaction that is taking place, such as political rhetoric, which creates the pretense for security in effort to stifle war coverage.
The actions taken by free people to limit Market activities can be destructive, however the compliment that direct action aimed at prevention and willingful sabotage provide real and useful compliments to the other forces that distort the Market, in many cases to the overall detriment of society, if left unbalanced or unchecked.
Cameras on the Battlefield, Transmuting Suffering into Peace.